|
|
Post by robmarsh on Nov 3, 2017 16:20:58 GMT
Brilliant Carl
|
|
|
|
Post by mikael on Nov 4, 2017 7:45:36 GMT
Ref: 2021 F1 power unit rules proposed (MS online) The improvement of the sound is mentioned again and again in this article. It's peculiar that "improvement of the sound" has become a legitimate objective. Previously, a great sound was just an unavoidable byproduct of performance. In other words, performance was everything; no attention was paid to the sound. (Think, for example, about Renault's early development of the turbocharged engine. It was very silent, but nobody paid any thoughts to that. It was about finding performance only.) Technically, the MGU-H is an excellent idea, but of course it muffles the sound significantly, since it makes the rotation of the turbocharger out of "phase" with the rotation (RPM) of the engine. By the way, it's kind of funny how F1 (and Mark Hughes as well!) has been trying, apparently, to make a great mystery out of this (relatively) simple device by insisting on saying that it harvests energy from "heat". It is, after all, just an electric motor/generator attached to the axle of the turbocharger, acting as a motor which assists the gas flow in driving the turbocharger (to nullify the "turbo-lag") by acceleration out of corners, etc., and acting as a generator (or an "energy harvester") under braking (down to corners, etc.). Thus the MGU-H is, as the turbocharger itself, driven by the exhaust gas flow. (But of course, this gas-flow is due to the combustion process, and the combustion is ... heat.) Mark Hughes's writings give the impression that he imagines the MGU-H to harvest electrical energy directly from heat. Like in this article: www.motorsportmagazine.com/opinion/f1/f1-tech-power-fuelwhere he writes, for example: " Is there more lap time to be gained by increasing the combustion efficiency of the internal combustion engine or from creating more heat for the MGU-H to use?" More heat for the MGU-H to use? ... Like some commentators pointed out, one wonders what he has in mind, and what his image of the MGU-H is like. One can of course think about if the kinetic energy of a gas flow is larger (or smaller) if the temperature of the gas is increased (and that is really what it's all about)- but I don't think that's what he had in mind. |
|
|
|
Post by charleselan on Nov 4, 2017 11:47:35 GMT
Mikael,
Many thanks for such an educational post, the facts of which you have explained in a very clear and interesting format.
To be honest I had taken little interest in the design principles of these PU's and could not have explained to anyone what the various functions were as I had no idea. I do wonder how many other enthusiasts are in the same position. I too had a similar feeling to you, in that Mark Hughes was asserting that the "heat" was the source of the power generation. Your explanation that it is in fact the spinning turbine that provides the power to the electro/generator is more clear.
Thanks again for your excellent explanation.
Incidentally could I direct you towards my post in the motor bike section about 1950's British Scrambling & Motocross, I hope you might find it of interest.
John Charles
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Nov 5, 2017 8:26:21 GMT
Mikael, what a wonderful post thank you, I have tried to read Mark's post and whilst his knowledge is very impressive I have to confess to a lack of interest in the technology of these new wonder-things- however Mikael as your explanation makes more sense to me, thus the racing may.
Perhaps not the place to ask this but I was wondering what fellow racers think of Mark Hughes's writings?
|
|
|
|
Post by mikael on Nov 5, 2017 8:57:45 GMT
Chris,
Thank you very much.
Personally, I do like the writings of Mark Hughes very much indeed. I think his Grand Prix reports are always a pleasure to read; often they read like a suspense novel. The way he starts out with describing the defining moment of a race is excellent.
As to technical matters, the F1 teams are so secretive, and he might possibly feel that he has to "write around" certain details in order not to give too much away -- in order not to get "blacklisted" by the F1 teams. (It's just my guess - I don't know how it is in reality.)
With best wishes
Mikael
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2017 9:18:32 GMT
I nominate Bernie Ecclestone as the first to be accidentally electrocuted. Wasn't it Alonso two or three years ago, testing at Barcelona? They always denied it, but never gave an explanation whatsoever too. |
|
|
|
Post by mikael on Nov 5, 2017 9:49:37 GMT
I nominate Bernie Ecclestone as the first to be accidentally electrocuted. Wasn't it Alonso two or three years ago, testing at Barcelona? They always denied it, but never gave an explanation whatsoever too. Hello Lucio, very nice to meet you here :-) Yes, that's right; it was the first year with Honda (2015). It was even so serious that he missed out the first GP (in Australia) of the season. Yes, what really happened was very much "swept under the rug". |
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Nov 5, 2017 10:05:49 GMT
hello Lucio,
sorry gentleman, wasn't it swept under a blanket? an electric one?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2017 10:06:56 GMT
Hello Lucio, very nice to meet you here :-) Hi Mikael, thank you, my pleasure too. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2017 10:09:41 GMT
hello Lucio, sorry gentleman, wasn't it swept under a blanket? an electric one? Hello Chris. Yes, that is my recollection, they never explained it. Which I always found puzzling. |
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Nov 5, 2017 20:31:39 GMT
Lucio and Mikael,
It's nice to have the benefit of your combined knowledge!
1) Mikael postulates about extraordinary secrecy in F1
2) Lucio accurately recalls where and when a driver received a serious electric shock
3) There is consensus.
You remind us of what F1 wants left forgotten. Brilliant!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2017 12:54:56 GMT
Very good post from Mikael above. Despite there was a time I could design an engine (I remember at my professional exam I was given to prelim design an airliner turbofan, in eight hours), must say I totally missed being up to date on recent developments. This despite plenty of very good articles on Race Car Engineering magazine, which I duly did NOT read. The interest was just not there for me. But haven’t forgotten thermodynamics…
About Hughes, he obviously says explicitly he’s not an engineer, fair enough. He’s very good to read the current developments, has good sources and his race reports are comprehensive. Technically, he isn’t at LJK Setright’s level, but Setright wasn’t an F1 reporter either, although he wrote some books on the history of the sport that are particularly good.
The issue sometimes I have with some current journalists – not just Hughes, also Turrini in Italy – is they tend to extend the span of their life beyond when they were born! Reading Turrini one would be led to believe he was intimate with Enzo F, and I’m afraid he wasn’t. Allievi perhaps, and up to a point. Hughes was recently asked about when Peterson signed for McLaren in 1978 for the ’79 season – I mean, he must have been 6 or 7… I appreciate he has duly read a lot about the sport, it’s his job; but also some of us has, in some cases were fully contemporaries to the events (I mean, not toddlers) and are capable to do two plus two. Another issue is they tend to have their pet driver and think they know best against the mounting evidence – for example Turrini vis a vis the current Raikkonen or for Hughes, Grosjean. Sorry, end of OT.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Nov 7, 2017 19:59:29 GMT
Lucio,
Having once conceived an immovable perpetual motion machine, I am awed by someone able to design a functional turbofan engine...in eight hours!
Fortunately my pencil's more clever end erased all the evidence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2017 20:54:19 GMT
Carl, in practice, it's simpler than it looks. They give you the basic specs: mission (flight envelope), required thrust, cruise speed etc. The first is to setup the thermodynamic cycle through basic design parameters: temperatures, bypass ratio, pressure ratio, several engine and turbo efficiencies. On that basis you then size the main mechanical elements - fan blades, burner, shaft, intake, nozzle etc - and put it all together to have a workable aero/mech package to start with. Obviously few passages are repeated, as successive approximations. In an exam environment, time management is key, once you know what you are doing of course: always keep going, never get stuck. Rocket science is overrated!  |
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Nov 8, 2017 0:46:17 GMT
We have a little Audi A1 1.4 TFSI which I absolutely adore. Always been a sucker for fast hatchbacks. Rob, I wasn't too familiar with that particular Audi model and did a search. What a great looking and performing car! I feel the same as you about hatchbacks as I think the basic concept is brilliant. A well-engineered and well-designed one is hard to resist. It it's also fast, it's irresistible. -Carl |
|
